Media Matters: Sorry Unions, The Wall Street Journal Still Hates You

[ProSense]

Sorry Unions, The Wall Street Journal Still Hates You

MEAGAN HATCHER-MAYS

The Wall Street Journal renewed its opposition to all things union in a recent editorial, complaining about a proposed rule change that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hopes will make union elections more efficient.

On February 5, the NLRB announced a series of proposed rule changes that streamlines labor organizing, including a new rule that could eliminate long delays that hinder employees' ability to vote up or down on union representation.

In a February 10 editorial, the WSJ framed the new rules as an attack on employers, arguing that a change in election timing could "unbalance" employers' First Amendment rights. This is far from the first time the WSJ has taken an unfair dig at unions and their members, but this time the editorial board's defense of an employer's right to badmouth unions during an election managed to completely ignore how unfair anti-union sentiment has flourished under the old system.

The WSJ also mischaracterized the NLRB's previous attempt to change the rules in 2011 as "failed," even though it later admits that the court that heard the case did not overturn the rule on substantive grounds, but rather because of procedural concerns. Specifically, because the Republican appointee to the NLRB in 2011 made good on his threat to "block" the rule by refusing to vote, the court ruled he had successfully denied the board of its required quorum.

From the editorial:

The National Labor Relations Board has been one of the most active outposts of the Obama "unilateral presidency." It returned to the news last week with a proposal to speed up union elections. The board floated this rule once before. It failed. Take two is no better.

The idea first surfaced in 2011, after "card check" legislation to steamroll elections failed in Congress. The NLRB then went looking for other ways to make it easier for unions to organize work sites. They landed on a new rule, which would get unions in the door fast with speeded-up certification votes.

In that spirit, the NLRB jammed the rule through with the votes of only two members, both Democrats. An official quorum required three members, and on that ground the U.S. District Court in Washington declared the vote invalid, in response to a lawsuit by the Chamber of Commerce.

Under the NLRB's latest and rewarmed proposal, a company is required to give the union the contact information for all its employees, and the time frame for a vote is shortened. The current average period after the union calls for a vote is 38 days. The new rule would shorten it to between 10 and 21 days after the petition is filed.

Unions say the quickie rule is necessary because the longer time frame lets businesses discourage workers from supporting the union. An alternative view would be that 38 days allows businesses and workers to have a debate on the merits of unionizing before the election is held. Union membership rates have been declining in no small part because when workers are given an informed choice, they don't think union representation is worth losing a chunk of their paycheck.

- more -

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/11/sorry-unions-the-wall-street-journal-still-hate/198020

[SamKnause]

1. Fuck the Wall Street Journal

Fuck Wall Street.

The People have Power.

There is Strength in numbers.

There is Power and Strength in Unions !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ProSense]

2. So you approve of the rules? n/t

[SamKnause]

3. I am in favor of anything that strengthens unions and the rights of workers.

[idendoit]

4. I embrace their hatred.

[ProSense]

5. Up in arms over union ‘persuader’ rule

Up in arms over union ‘persuader’ rule

By Kevin Bogardus and Ben Goad

Business groups are fighting to stop an Obama administration regulation that would force companies to disclose when they employ legal consultants behind the scenes during union organizing campaigns...groups are up in arms about a forthcoming “persuader” rule from the Labor Department that they say could have a chilling effect on the legal world and scare firms away from representing them.

<...>

Under current rules, employers are only required to disclose the hiring of outside firms on union elections when the consultants make direct contact with employees...that would change under a new Labor Department regulation due out as early as next month. First proposed in June 2011, the revised regulation would require employers to disclose any work by consultants on union election strategy.

Labor advocates allege that the consultants train supervisors how to push back on union organizers, and say firms in the “union avoidance” industry should be exposed to public scrutiny.

“It’s a sensible proposal to close a union-busting loophole that companies have been able to hide behind,” said Josh Goldstein, an AFL-CIO spokesman.

- more -

http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/labor/198153-union-persuader-rule-has-industry-groups-up-in-arms